If the Federal Trade Commission steps in to block its purchase of AdMob, Google's chief executive Eric Schmidt said in an interview, "we're likely to fight very hard. It's a very strategic acquisition for Google."

In his interview with Reuters, Schmidt said AdMob has been left with a "significant disadvantage" as the FTC reviews the deal.

Google announced it would purchase AdMob last fall after it noting Apple's interest in the leading mobile ad network. Jobs characterized Google's acquisition by saying the search giant "snatched" AdMob away from Apple.

A report by The New York Times said that Google willingly overpaid in its $750 million purchase of AdMob just to keep the company away from Apple, which subsequently bought the second place Quattro Wireless ad network this January.

iAd vs AdMob

At the unveiling of iPhone OS 4, Apple announced a program to turn its new Quattro subsidiary into iAd, a specialized advertising platform native to the iPhone OS. The company outlined upscale, interactive advertising designed exclusively for placement in App Store software titles at prices only big brands could afford.

The iAd platform is therefore significantly different than Google's AdMob efforts, which are very similar to the company's AdSense program on the web: fairly subtle ads that just launch an external web page when clicked. User clicks and ad display volumes are so high for AdSense that Google pays very little to content providers who display its ads. That also makes the ads affordable to anyone, including many dubious or even obviously shady advertisers.

Google makes the vast majority of its revenues from paid search placement, not from display ads. However, the company also sees mobile devices as a critical market as consumers flock to smartphones and other mobile devices like iPad and the iPod touch. However, Google has not yet revealed a mobile ad strategy that strays very far from its AdSense program.

Like AdSense, Google's AdMob ads are just simple links to external websites or other App Store titles in iTunes, although the company also places them on all smartphone platforms beyond the iPhone OS. Unsurprisingly, AdMob now reports the most ad requests from apps on Google's own Android platform, which sells fewer paid apps and relies more upon free titles supported by ads.

Jobs: iAd doesn't suck

In presenting iAd, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs described existing mobile ads, typified by AdMob, as undesirable both for users and for developers. Clicking on an AdMob ad leads users away from the developer's app, and users have to find their own way back.

Apple's iAd platform is designed to open up richly interactive experiences within the app, which then returns the users back to their app when they exit. The interactive iAd experiences are created in HTML5, enabling ads to support animated features that respond to touch, play back movies and even support embedded games.

Quattro has also outlined a program called ViP to link its ads to Apple's iTunes Store to enable advertisers to access proprietary data on the effectiveness of their ads as users download apps featured within the ad. Other advertising networks can't offer this feature.

Schmidt: App Store ad rules "discriminatory"

Apple has also acted to forbid iPhone apps from sharing personal information with third parties, a step that protects user privacy but also eviscerates efforts by advertising networks to track users' behaviors and target them with relevant ads. Jobs has reportedly characterized this as granting users "freedom from programs that steal your private data."

Critics claim Apple is trying to kill rival ad networks on the iPhone platform by preventing them from harvesting users' private data, such as their GPS location, as they display ads within apps. Schmidt said Apple's ad restrictions were "discriminatory against other partners."

Android does not appear to have any restrictions on the private user data apps can forward to third parties. Google also does not have an app approval process like Apple's, which has led to malware attacks from apps listed in the Android Market which destroyed users' data, installed adware, and sent spam to their email accounts.

Google also does not have an app approval process like Apple's, which has led to malware attacks from apps listed in the Android Market which destroyed users' data, installed adware, and sent spam to their email accounts.

Has this actually happened? I remember people predicting it, but does anyone have a link to a news story where this occurred?

I remember the old spyware from the last decade. Alexa and others. Google is the same thing except with a smile to distract you from what they are really doing

That's probably the best description of Google.
smile... Yes but you forgot they do it with "free and open" products that caused people to go blind from what they're truly doing. Well people love free stuff.

I like the privacy policy of Apple, whether this was strategic or a philosophical choice. Apple should advertize it more to distinguish the iAds from other ads. Further, I'd be interested to see a head-to-head competition between the competing philosophies of the highly intrusive Google approach (via AdMob) and that of Quattro.

My only concern with the announced plan of Apple is that the Quattro Ads may be priced too high beyond the reach of most advertizers. At the same time, it would not be a good strategy either so that it is within reach of spammers and shady companies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by al_bundy

I remember the old spyware from the last decade. Alexa and others. Google is the same thing except with a smile to distract you from what they are really doing

If I am not mistaken, Alexa is owned by Amazon. I read so much about Google's deliberate attempts to invade privacy. That is why, except for the Search, I seldom use their products. Rather disappointing because I like their Chrome.

Has this actually happened? I remember people predicting it, but does anyone have a link to a news story where this occurred?

You're joking right? I mean, really? They have a link in big bold letters, malware, that links to an Gizmodo story about such an Android attack. And there's a website called Google where you can search such things and find similar accounts.

Google is all about YOUR VERY DATA full stop. Your behaviour and preference are all that feeds their much existence. The latest privacy/data issues that came out of Google is about them recording information about open networks and SSD while filming Google StreetView in Europe (Germany to be precise) even though they did not use it. The fact still, they take everything.

That looks like the malware was preloaded on a new phone, rather than from an app store download.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mesomorphicman

You're joking right? I mean, really? They have a link in big bold letters, malware, that links to an Gizmodo story about such an Android attack. And there's a website called Google where you can search such things and find similar accounts.

Good grief!

I read the version of the article that is at the top of the comments pages. The link to which you refer does not show up in that version, so I did not realize it was there. Sorry to have caused your blood pressure to spike.

Google is all about YOUR VERY DATA full stop. Your behaviour and preference are all that feeds their much existence. The latest privacy/data issues that came out of Google is about them recording information about open networks and SSD while filming Google StreetView in Europe (Germany to be precise) even though they did not use it. The fact still, they take everything.

It was a mistake by Google but it's telling that these things even happen by accident with them. Google, along with Facebook, believe that privacy should no longer exist and are trying heavily to push that vision of their future as hard as possible. Even bloggers like Scoble actually fall for that garbage.

There is however another development pointed out, by a developer, Marco Arment, that is now happening in the iPhone, the presence of "junk Apps" that use "use icons, application names, and in some cases, other artwork that could constitute copyright or trademark violations" and trademark App titles of legitimate Apps. Thus, these junk Apps may show up when you search for a specific Apps.

should report these junk Apps to Apple (appstorenotices@apple.com) and take other measures.

However, since these Apps were reviewed, Apple should be more vigilant in its screening process, and the guilty developers should be issued a warning for the first offense. The author of the original report also noted several developers that actually created several dozens of these junk Apps. These offenders/violators must be banned.

Some members of the anti-Apple group, may lampoon the statement associated with the Apple Apps Store to:

Of all the things Apple has up its sleeve, iAd must be the most worrying for Google. In fact Google might not be so worried about rumors of MobileMe going free. But iAd hurts Google in ways that other things wont.

What we have heard of iAd so far, is just the beginning - the potential for this is immense. People hated tablets till Apple touched the tablet - or should I say multitouched the tablet! Similarly, people hate ads today - will Apple's touch be enough to change things enough that ads actually will not be so hated?

Google also has a very interesting strategy - wherever they make money, their algorithms, and software are proprietary - in other areas, Google keeps harping about Open Source, and Free software. This makes it difficult for the likes of Microsoft to compete with Google - because Google is happy to give away its software for free.

In a similar way, Apple has taken a page from the Google playbook when it comes to iAd. iAd is not a significant source of revenue for Apple - so when Apple came up with the restrictions on using User Information, and the Privacy initiatives, it did not have anything to lose. Google on the other hand mints all its billions by exploiting personal information of users. Privacy is one area where Google is on very shaky ground. The beauty of all this, is that Google does not begin to have as much information about the user as Apple has! Apple has your credit card billing address - so it knows exactly where you live. Apple knows what apps you buy, and what music you prefer. The OS knows your location - so the OS can actually display ads specific to your location - while AdMob is prevented from using this information.

Apple's implementation allows it to take the moral high ground on Privacy issues - because no private information is ever sent outside your device. If a restaurant wants to send promotions to everyone in the neighbourhood, all they need is to create an ad, and register with the AppStore, specifying the location for which the ad is valid. The OS gets a list of all ads, together with the locations for which the ads are valid, finds the valid ads for the user's current location, and displays just those ads. No personal information needs to go anywhere. The AppStore can also fine tune ads based on your purchase history, and your music preferences, without getting any information from the device.

To explain in simpler terms, this mechanism is no different from the way in which the AppStore application on the iPhone tells you how many Updates are available for the apps you have installed.

This implementation is a lot similar to Amazon's "People who bought the items in your shopping cart also bought" feature. Google on the other hand, phishes for information in your emails, and in your searches to deliver the same information. Amazon's and Apple's implementation does not threaten the user as much as Google's implementation does, because Google has to retain this information to be able to serve ads that are relevant. Amazon and Apple retain purchase history - which they are anyway supposed to retain.

It was a mistake by Google but it's telling that these things even happen by accident with them. Google, along with Facebook, believe that privacy should no longer exist and are trying heavily to push that vision of their future as hard as possible. Even bloggers like Scoble actually fall for that garbage.

I, for one, am not buying the "mistake" explanation. Even Google's own "explanation" casts doubt on that assertion. According to them, it was "experimental code" that was "never removed". So, it's not like it was a programming error. Code was intentionally added to do just this. They were collecting this data for, I believe, over 3 years.

They also claim that it's "fragmentary" and that it was never used, but we only have their word for that, which doesn't really count for much. It is interesting to note that, as of the last I heard on this subject, they are resisting allowing regulators to see the actual data they have collected, or audit its usage, if any.

I think it's about time Google came under some serious and tight regulation, and time for governments of "free societies" around the world to live up to the name and start protecting their citizens from the intrusive practices of Big Brother companies like Google.

So if Google can't make a decent buck on the iPhone OS platform will they start charging iPhone OS users for search results? More likely they may block search from the iPhone OS users.

Apple has the mobile ad business and has yet to do something with their mapping software purchase. It seems Apple will need to buy a search firm too. Maybe that's what their new data center is really for. I'm sure Yahoo has a whole department of search developers for sale.

Google is all about YOUR VERY DATA full stop. Your behaviour and preference are all that feeds their much existence. The latest privacy/data issues that came out of Google is about them recording information about open networks and SSD while filming Google StreetView in Europe (Germany to be precise) even though they did not use it. The fact still, they take everything.

Careful, data is a means to an end, not the end itself. I don't know if Google sells the data or exposes personally identifiable user data to business partner. So far that I've seen, they've only used the data to help them improve ad placement. That doesn't mean they won't do something more with it, but so far, I haven't seen proof of sinister personal data use on their part.

The street view issue appears to be about faulty kismet settings, though it seems they should know better.

If you're worried about your data, there are a lot of businesses you shouldn't deal with. Amazon is aggressive about recording what you look at. It might not be a good idea to be on the internet at all. It is probably best to pay cash for everything you buy too, and don't give them any information when you're buying your items, and certainly don't use the frequent customer cards.

I don't know if Google sells the data or exposes personally identifiable user data to business partner. So far that I've seen, they've only used the data to help them improve ad placement. That doesn't mean they won't do something more with it, but so far, I haven't seen proof of sinister personal data use on their part.

What do you know? Can you predict the future? Do you know if a Google employee has acted--or ever will act--independently to browse the data collected about you? What are the odds that Google will suffer a major security breach or that Google will make a disastrous decision about how it uses your data. Oh, wait...

If you're worried about your data, there are a lot of businesses you shouldn't deal with. Amazon is aggressive about recording what you look at. It might not be a good idea to be on the internet at all. It is probably best to pay cash for everything you buy too, and don't give them any information when you're buying your items, and certainly don't use the frequent customer cards.

That's just a ridiculous attitude toward privacy. If one is worried about one's privacy, the thing to do is to take steps to protect it. That includes blocking tracking cookies, blocking gscripts, and lobbying your elected representatives to enact laws to protect it. The idea that we ought to have to give up privacy to go on the internet is entirely offensive. What we have to do is put some strong restraints on those who wish to be intrusive.

EDIT: Seriously, do we need Google to be able to effectively target us with ads? No we do not. What we do need is to have Google's propensity to intrude into our private lives be curbed.

Why does everyone (Google, especially) assume that everyone is a master computer user and can automatically deal with the nefariousness of accessing rogue, unpatrolled app stores?

We all know how well Grandma Tilly has fared with her Windows machine, what with her grandkids coming over every 2 hours to resuscitate her useless beige box and downloading yet another set of virus definitions.

I'd rather err on the side of keeping the ecosystem closed. Everyone on this site know how to jump the gate (jailbreak, hack, etc.), so I don't know why all the Apple naysayers are whining. To paraphrase one of the redneck South Park characters and which has been repeated ad nauseam, "If you don't like Apple, then giiiiit out!"

That's just a ridiculous attitude toward privacy. If one is worried about one's privacy, the thing to do is to take steps to protect it. That includes blocking tracking cookies, blocking gscripts, and lobbying your elected representatives to enact laws to protect it. The idea that we ought to have to give up privacy to go on the internet is entirely offensive. What we have to do is put some strong restraints on those who wish to be intrusive.

I'm making an argument about consistency though. If you're worried about Google having your data, you should be worried about browsing/ordering from Amazon, using Facebook, nearly any large web site, and frankly, the grocery chain that uses frequent customer cards is probably collecting and tabulating a lot of your purchase data too. I'm not saying people should be giving up their privacy, I'm saying that the problem is far broader than just one internet company. Fighting one bogeyman is just a distraction that prevents a broader perspective.

Blocking cookies and scripts help, but it's not a complete solution. Repeatedly visiting the same service/site from the same IP address for a while is often enough to build a good profile.

I'm making an argument about consistency though. If you're worried about Google having your data, you should be worried about browsing/ordering from Amazon, using Facebook, nearly any large web site, and frankly, the grocery chain that uses frequent customer cards is probably collecting and tabulating a lot of your purchase data too. I'm not saying people should be giving up their privacy, I'm saying that the problem is far broader than just one internet company.

Blocking cookies and scripts help, but it's not a complete solution. Repeatedly visiting the same service/site from the same IP address for a while is often enough to build a good profile.

Yes, Google isn't the only problem, just the biggest problem. Because of this, it's appropriate to spotlight them as the poster child of privacy abuse and corporate intrusiveness. But, by all means, let us be aware of the privacy violations of Amazon and others. And let us press for laws to make all of this sort of behavior illegal.

However, there should be not even the suggestion, even obliquely, that people rightfully concerned about privacy issues and corporate abuses of the same should stay off the Internet. That's equivalent to telling people worried about crime that they should stay locked inside their houses with their windows barred.

Yes, Google isn't the only problem, just the biggest problem. Because of this, it's appropriate to spotlight them as the poster child of privacy abuse and corporate intrusiveness. But, by all means, let us be aware of the privacy violations of Amazon and others. And let us press for laws to make all of this sort of behavior illegal.

I don't think Google is the worst though, I'm pretty sure that would have to be Facebook.

Quote:

However, there should be not even the suggestion, even obliquely, that people rightfully concerned about privacy issues and corporate abuses of the same should stay off the Internet. That's equivalent to telling people worried about crime that they should stay locked inside their houses with their windows barred.

That's true, but I was making a point, just one that happened to make you uncomfortable. Highlighting just the posterboy doesn't make people aware that they're leaking their personal data all the time in their regular day to day activities, just swiping a credit/debit card is one such leak, they get your name on the swipe and tie it to what you just bought and the chain can start compiling a history, for internal use and possible resale. One such danger is that people might switch to Yahoo not aware that it can happen there too, meaning that Yahoo & Microsoft get your search & browsing data.

I don't think Google is the worst though, I'm pretty sure that would have to be Facebook.

Well, Facebook has become very problematic of late. However, it's relatively easy to avoid Facebook, just don't open an account with them. With Google Analytics spread all over the web, and with Google with its tentacles everywhere, it's almost impossible to avoid Google.

Quote:

That's true, but I was making a point, just one that happened to make you uncomfortable. Highlighting just the posterboy doesn't make people aware that they're leaking their personal data all the time in their regular day to day activities, just swiping a credit/debit card is one such leak, they get your name on the swipe and tie it to what you just bought and the chain can start compiling a history, for internal use and possible resale. One such danger is that people might switch to Yahoo not aware that it can happen there too, meaning that Yahoo & Microsoft get your search & browsing data.

No. 1 on my list of privacy concerns is e-mail. I believe this issue should be high--if not #1--on everyone else's list, too. It therefore surprises me that the vast majority of people have their e-mail hosted on a shared server without encryption. Easy-to-use, encrypted e-mail communications combined with encrypted storage ought to be a huge market opportunity.

I for one, have zero issues, with Google's invasion of my privacy. As an adult I fully understand the trade I am making. I am getting free services in exchange for their snooping. If I don't like it, I can go elsewhere.

I don't see what the big deal is. People who want privacy can and should avoid all web-based services. Don't use Google or Bing Maps. Don't use Google or Yahoo for search. Don't use Hotmail or GMail. Don't use Facebook. Heck, don't use any sort of online chat service. You never know who's snooping on your conversation there. How sure can you really be that MSN isn't being mined for keywords?

And personally I don't think even Apple si beyond snooping my data. Does anybody seriously think Apple isn't going to mine MobileMe for info to target ads at some point in the future? And if they do, I'll have zero issues with it. As long as they are using that revenue to discount the service.

If you value privacy, spend the cash and accept limitations on your mobility and information. Ditch Google Maps. Pay for a GPS. Ditch web-based mail. Use an email client and keep e-mail on your computer. Use Firefox. And pray that isn't calling home. Etc. And after all that, pray that your ISP/telco isn't in cahoots with the government.

And while you're at it, ditch the store loyalty cards. Ditch all your credit cards as well. I daresay that Aeroplan, Air Miles, Visa and American Express probably know me better than Google, after all is said and done. Or at least they know me better on what counts: how I spend my money.

It's hypocrisy though to just complain about Google and then use other services which equally imperil your privacy. At least have the gumption to admit that it's more about Google getting your info than privacy itself.

Complaining about Google's invasion of privacy is no better than those who complain about Apple's "walled garden". And equally annoying. Don't like the "walled garden"? Don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone or an iPod Touch. If you want Flash and Jobs doesn't allow it, go somewhere else. It's Apple's platform. They can do as they please. And the same goes for Google. If you don't like Google, don't use their services. And don't frequent websites that use Adsense/Adwords. Nobody is forcing you to use Google. Just like nobody is forcing anybody to buy anything Apple.

I'm making an argument about consistency though. If you're worried about Google having your data, you should be worried about browsing/ordering from Amazon, using Facebook, nearly any large web site, and frankly, the grocery chain that uses frequent customer cards is probably collecting and tabulating a lot of your purchase data too. I'm not saying people should be giving up their privacy, I'm saying that the problem is far broader than just one internet company. Fighting one bogeyman is just a distraction that prevents a broader perspective.

Blocking cookies and scripts help, but it's not a complete solution. Repeatedly visiting the same service/site from the same IP address for a while is often enough to build a good profile.

While what you say is true, Google (and, to a lesser extent Facebook) are an entirely different scope of problem than your corner grocery store. When you sign up for a shopping card at your local store, you're expecting that they will track your shopping - because that's what you signed up for them to do.

Google, OTOH, tracks EVERYTHING you do - without permission. They almost certainly have more information about you than the U.S. Government.

I wouldn't be as concerned if Google didn't have a history of ignoring everyone's rights in order to get their way. Their attempts to copy and disseminate all the world's literature WITHOUT PERMISSION ought to be an eye opener for everyone.

Facebook has a different problem. When you create a Facebook page and ask friends to recognize you, they can post all sorts of junk about you on the page. Because it's your page, readers assume that you're OK with what's posted there. Your control over the page is very crude and clumsy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

That's just a ridiculous attitude toward privacy. If one is worried about one's privacy, the thing to do is to take steps to protect it. That includes blocking tracking cookies, blocking gscripts, and lobbying your elected representatives to enact laws to protect it. The idea that we ought to have to give up privacy to go on the internet is entirely offensive. What we have to do is put some strong restraints on those who wish to be intrusive.

I agree. Historically, the internet has been "anything you want to do is OK unless specifically prohibited" (with very little, if anything, that's specifically prohibited). There need to be specific rules to protect your privacy online.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

While what you say is true, Google (and, to a lesser extent Facebook) are an entirely different scope of problem than your corner grocery store. When you sign up for a shopping card at your local store, you're expecting that they will track your shopping - because that's what you signed up for them to do.

How is it different? You are choosing to use Google. And you are choosing to sign up for their services. There are plenty of other options out there, if you don't like Google. You can always use Bing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

Google, OTOH, tracks EVERYTHING you do - without permission. They almost certainly have more information about you than the U.S. Government.

I highly doubt they have more info on you than the US government, unless you are somehow repeatedly typing in your tax return and social security number into Google Search for some reason. Then again Google probably knows whether you like blonds or brunettes and whether you are a T or an A man, so maybe they do have a headstart on Homeland Security.

But let's say they do know more, who gave them that info? You did. You chose to do it. Is there anybody out there that does not know how Google works or operates at this point? Don't like it? Don't use it. Simple as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta

I wouldn't be as concerned if Google didn't have a history of ignoring everyone's rights in order to get their way. Their attempts to copy and disseminate all the world's literature WITHOUT PERMISSION ought to be an eye opener for everyone.

That was a terrible move. And they rightly got rapped on the wrist for that one. Nevertheless, I certainly appreciate the effort to get all sorts of formerly inaccessible literature online. If Lexus Nexus had done it first, I'd be on there reading stuff I don't normally have access to. Perhaps their methods leave much to be desired, but I don't find their goal the least bit objectionable.

Does Google allow other competing ad networks to place ads in their web apps? As far as I understand only Google can place ads in gmail. How is that less discriminatory than what Apple is doing? In fact it seems to me Apple is being very generous.

How is it different? You are choosing to use Google. And you are choosing to sign up for their services. There are plenty of other options out there, if you don't like Google. You can always use Bing.

I highly doubt they have more info on you than the US government, unless you are somehow repeatedly typing in your tax return and social security number into Google Search for some reason. Then again Google probably knows whether you like blonds or brunettes and whether you are a T or an A man, so maybe they do have a headstart on Homeland Security.

But let's say they do know more, who gave them that info? You did. You chose to do it. Is there anybody out there that does not know how Google works or operates at this point? Don't like it? Don't use it. Simple as that.

That was a terrible move. And they rightly got rapped on the wrist for that one. Nevertheless, I certainly appreciate the effort to get all sorts of formerly inaccessible literature online. If Lexus Nexus had done it first, I'd be on there reading stuff I don't normally have access to. Perhaps their methods leave much to be desired, but I don't find their goal the least bit objectionable.